THE HOLY SPIRIT IN RELATION TO THE TYPES OF THE ASSEMBLY (4)
[p. 330] THE HOLY SPIRIT IN RELATION TO THE TYPES OF THE ASSEMBLY (4)
Exodus 18: 1 - 12; Joshua 15: 13 - 19
JT We have an expression in Acts 7, “the assembly in the wilderness”. Moses being alluded to as with it, and that is the point of view in Exodus. We have called attention to the Spirit as standing related to the types in Genesis 2 and 24. The Spirit is seen typically in persons, and His power in the lower creatures, the camels, as well as in the wells. This is seen in Abraham’s servant, whose name is not given there; he is the eldest of his house. The camels we noted as carrying power, which is the Spirit needed for the assembly. Even in regard to Jacob, and Rachel, and Leah, we have also the Spirit as the well mentioned. In coming to Exodus, we have the Holy Spirit in chapter 2, where Zipporah comes to light first as Moses’ spouse. Moses sat by the well, we are told, and watered the flock of Jethro, which his daughters had brought to the well. Then in chapter 17, we have the water. The rock is smitten and the water comes out. We have the water here as a type of the Spirit. The springs in the passage read in Joshua refer to the Spirit also. The Lord, I believe, would impress us with these great facts. The formation and maintenance of the testimony of the assembly can only be by the Spirit. Christendom has moved away in ceremonies borrowed from judaism and heathendom. The Lord would bring us back by the power of the Spirit, the only power by which we may be in the assembly according to God; and we are testimony in it. The part of our subject now is Exodus, that is Moses’ wife as typical of the assembly in the wilderness, at Sinai really. The question of “in-law” enters into the matter, not in the qualification of the assembly, as in the type, but to bring out the legal position.
“Law rules”, we are told in Romans 7. I bring that in because I think that bears on this part of our subject, that is, the legal position. It is prominent in this passage, many times, beginning with Jethro, priest of Midian, “And ... Moses’ father-in-law, heard of all that God had done to Moses”. That is the position of the assembly, the wilderness in relation to the mountain of God.
SMcC Is there anything of note in the fact that the legal side is stressed after the breaking of the power of Amalek by Joshua?
JT It follows as to the Spirit, although it does not say that they drank it, because there is not enough evidence that they had It typically. It says the rock was smitten that there might be water. It says, there was no water for the people to drink, and so God said to Moses, “Go on before the people, and take with thee of the elders of Israel, and thy staff with which thou didst smite the river, take in thy hand, and go. Behold, I will stand before thee there on the rock upon Horeb; and thou shalt strike the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink”. They are not said to have drunk, but the water is here for them, and it is present before the battle. When we come into conflict we prove the reality of it, only that the conflict here is dependent not only on the Spirit, but on the exercise of priesthood in Moses and the generalship of Joshua; but the water is there.
SMcC The legality of the position is not established today merely on ecclesiastical ground, but on moral ground, too.
JT That is the idea, I think, so that the question arises if people wish to have part in the assembly in its public relation: Have they received the Holy Spirit? That is the question to ask. There is the question here that has to be answered. Elsewhere they drink of the water, but here the water is [p. 332] present, but has it really been appropriated? The question is whether there are not many in fellowship who have not the Spirit consciously, though recognising it as a doctrine or a principle, as it is here.
AEH Paul challenges the Corinthians who had taken the position in a public way, saying, “I will come quickly to you ... ; and I will know, not the word of those that are puffed up, but the power”, 1 Corinthians 4: 19. Does that bear a little on what you say?
JT Yes, that is it. It is a question of the power that we have, whether we have the Spirit.
CHH Joshua had to choose out men. Would he discern who had it as he chose the men?
JT Well, this is the first mention of Joshua as a developed man, a reliable man. Why did Moses confide to him such a charge saying, “Choose us men, and go out, fight with Amalek; tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill”? The battle is against the flesh; it is a testing matter, whether we are able to overcome the workings of the flesh in us, according to Romans 7.
JTJr The Spirit is life on account of righteousness.
JT That is right. That is what Romans 8 says. Romans 7 is the challenge. The legal position is clear enough; “to be to another ... in order that we might bear fruit to God”; that is in the Spirit. We are to be to another; it is all subjective truth. Galatians contemplates the war; the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and these are contrary one to the other. Then we have the fruits of the Spirit and the flesh too, so it is a question of the fruits of the Spirit. To prove practically that I am in the right position, there must be the fruits, bringing forth fruit unto God.
Rem It is remarkable that the righteous requirements of the law are fulfilled in us. In this [p. 333] position, the activity of the Spirit in me helps me to maintain the righteous requirements of the law in walking after the Spirit; that is in Romans 8?
JT That is right. The righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled — not should be — but is fulfilled in us “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit”. Romans 8 down to verse 15 is full of the Spirit. It is the positive side on which the ground is held by the Spirit, not only legally. One may be in fellowship, but has not been to the meetings for five or six months. That such a one is still legally in fellowship cannot be disputed for a moment, but what is there attached to the legal position? Is there any fruit for God?
LES The fruitful result of the position would be seen in Gershom and Eliezer, they are the product of these exercises according to God.
JT That is why they are brought in here. Joseph’s children are brought in to show what he found in the family that God provided for him among the gentiles — what God gave him, he says. A most precious thing — what God gives us; not only am I satisfied with it, but if I have a sense of bereavement, I can shut out all that. The cup which we drink, the communion of the blood of Christ; involves satisfaction, so that I forget my father’s house, and I am fruitful among the gentiles in a strange land. Now Moses’ sons have different titles; of one he says, “I have been a sojourner in a foreign land”, and of the other “God ... has been my help”. That is the position according to him. We are strangers. People do not understand us. They do not know what we gather together for. We are strangers to circumstances around us. The next thing is, ‘God is our helper’. What would we do without God?
JTJr In spite of the facts that Joseph and Moses were both out of their family settings, yet [p. 334] they were both in relation to God in their family settings.
JT That is the point for us now. What he says about his two sons, in the names he gives them, furnishes the light for this position. It is his experience. There is nothing said about Zipporah herself, but she is in a right position. Her relation to Moses is unquestionable. She is a real wife there, and that is comforting. You do not want to be merely that though. If that is all that can be said of you, that can be seen in a marriage certificate. I want to have some fruit and affection for Christ.
RWS She conforms to it in chapter 4 in her action there.
JT She conforms to requirements legally. She does just as little as she needs to. “Zipporah took a stone and cut off the foreskin of her son, ... and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me”. It is no good title to call her husband. She accedes to what is right. There is that much in it anyway. She comes up to the legal requirements. Her position legally is impregnable. The legal side is established on her part. It is Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, who is a positive testimony to the legal side. That is comforting for Zipporah and the two boys, but then we need a good deal more than that.
FHL Over against the legal side there is, running right through Moses’ history, what he learned at the burning bush.
JT Yes. It means that if she is equal to it there are plenty of resources at the mountain of God. There is only one fellowship that God owns, one legal position, so to speak, and anyone coming into it comes into all the resources of God; they are all there, but it is the wilderness, where there is nothing for the flesh. That is the idea. What underlies the gathering together for these meetings? They are not holiday affairs. The position is that [p. 335] there is nothing for the flesh at all, and we have to accept that. We desire to be with Christ, and God is my helper. If we come on those lines, we shall always have power, and the sense of the presence of God.
LES Is circumcision brought in to pave the way for the understanding of the position spiritually instead of merely theoretically?
JT Well, it is clearly brought in. She would acquiesce in it legally as far as anyone can see. The thing was done, but why was she sent back? (Exodus 4: 20 and Exodus 18: 2). She ought to have been equal to the position in Egypt if she accepted circumcision. They are Egyptian circumstances in Colossians, the putting off of that part of the flesh. She ought to go forward with Moses. The word in Hebrews 10 is, “If he draw back, my soul does not take pleasure in him”. If you are sent back, you are under discipline then. We have to wait for God. Moses’ father-in-law brings her back again in Exodus 18.
RRT Is that what chapter 18: 3 refers to, “After he had sent her back”?
JT I think so. There is no historical account of it that I know of, except that.
CAM Would you say that all these remarkable happenings were the education of Moses in view of the place of Moses and the assembly in the wilderness?
JT Well, she has been brought here by her father and Moses’ father-in-law is typically to fill out the position. The position must be filled out even if it is only legal. God recognises the legal side. The position is to be filled out and that is, I think, what is meant. She is brought to this position, and it is to the mountain of God. There are plenty of resources, and the legal position is established and the question now is whether we draw on the resources. The power is seen in the overthrow of Amalek. If [p. 336] the legal position is to be held aright, it must be in the power of the Spirit and the choosing out of men. That is what we have to come into. The choosing out of men would involve care among us. We have to meet this matter of Amalek, the working of the flesh in young people, especially. How is it to be met?
WB-w No individual should be lost, and no local assembly should be lost. It is a question of care exercised by persons like the father-in-law; he brought up Zipporah, and brought her again into the position where she should be.
JT That is right. You choose out the men, choose out the men to meet this matter. It is a spiritual matter; and this is where spirituality begins really in Joshua. It is a question of spiritual discernment, the matter of Satan acting through the flesh, and how it is to be met. Satan has the greatest power in youth, but he acts in all of us.
WB-w In the next chapter it is a question of choosing out men for administration.
JT That is what Jethro proposes. He is not to be despised. He helps Moses. He comes in here in a remarkable way and must refer to some authoritative element in the profession around us which we cannot despise.
CHH Was there weakness in Moses in dismissing the sons?
JT I suppose he could not have the mother. If you cannot bring the mother along, you will have a hard job with the sons. It is the motherly qualities that look after the youths. He had to go through the matter alone in that sense. The exodus was Moses’ matter, but Jethro kept the boys. Zipporah did not have any part in the exodus from Egypt, nor did Jethro.
WGT It would seem that Jethro must have had good principles from what we get in this chapter [p. 337] and I thought he would help Moses in right principles even while the sons were away in the land of Midian.
JT He had right principles so far. He is acting on testimony, for it says that, “Moses’ father-in-law heard all that God had done to Moses, and to Israel his people”. That refers to what is abroad in the profession. When the movement of recovery began some years back men came along. They had the evidence of being the subjects of God’s work. They were allowed to have part in the service. The brethren did not keep them waiting at all. They had the evidence of being with God so far, but now it is a very different matter. The truth of the assembly is out and people have to be tested. “Have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed?”
AR The test then was going back to the system, the test now is leaving it, would you say? In Mr. Darby’s day persons who broke bread established the position by remaining. The question was, could they go back, but now it is a question of leaving it properly.
JT That is right. They left the denominations. Mr. Darby had done it himself. He was a curate. The others like him were curates, and such like. They were like Jethro, and were influenced for the moment by the truth of God, by the truth of the testimony and they came. The question of legality was clear, you may say. They had the same right as others. It was a question of brethren recognising one another and moving on together, going on in the Spirit. It is what happened subsequently that tested the persons.
WGT In Mr. Darby’s day they were on right lines generally; they were acceptable, and had equal right to the tree of life, which was recognised, but today we have to deal with a lawless [p. 338] system.
JT That was the position. One brother might say to another, Well you belong to the establishment. Do you not? Yes, I do. What do you belong to? Presbyterian. My position is as good as yours then? The point of legality comes up. What is my status? The fact is they were both christians. They could not be charged with anything personally. Jethro was a Midianite, priest of Midian. That is not challenged here. He acts as a priest here. The point is that he is with Moses’ wife. Abstractly, the idea of the assembly is there and nobody denies it. “There is one body and one Spirit, as ye have been also called in one hope of your calling; ... one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all”. Ephesians 4: 4, 6. Jethro says, “I, ... am come to thee”. That had to be recognised. He is not taken exception to yet. They would say, We can break bread with that man, he has the same right as we have.
Rem Then while as to individuals things are not up to the divine standard, there are resources in the Spirit to take them all on. As encamped at the mount of God there are resources.
JT Every christian in christendom could have come forward at that time, to the mountain of God. The resources are all there. Every christian has legally the right to be there abstractly. If you can bring things against them personally, they must be dealt with, but otherwise the persons have right to be there, for the assembly is there. Many wanted to go in for the truth of the assembly, the same as we do, but a large number went in for profession merely and missed the real thing. Gradually the way was cleared for Christ and the assembly. They had a hard time, but God was with them, and in general the position remains. If a christian comes into a meeting, abstractly, that man has the same right that [p. 339] you have, if he is really a christian, and then it is for him to show that he is.
FHL In John 6 it was when the Lord said, “The Spirit ... quickens” that many disciples went away back.
JT They turned from the truth. John’s ministry, of course, was a great test to them. It is the spiritual side of things, but this legal matter is important. The wife, Zipporah, is here, and the evidence that she was the wife is here, and the two boys with the names that Moses gave them. Moses represents God. He is the top stone of it all. He has come through the Red Sea. He gave those boys the names. One is a “sojourner”. The other is “My help”. What are you going to do? You will not be helped by men. God will help you. That is Eliezer. That is the position.
CDeB What would you say in connection with the affection side?
JT There is not much evidence of it as far as we can see, but she is there and has a marriage certificate, and Moses is her husband and he does not deny it. That means the assembly is recognised. We are recognised in the legal position. Every true christian is there.
RRT Would the word that Jethro sent to Moses indicate a right movement on his part? He said, “I, thy father-in-law Jethro, am come to thee”. It indicates a movement from his own sphere of things to Moses.
JT Yes, he is a good brother so far as his words go, but what is meant by this? It is the wilderness position. There is nothing much in the thing in the way of actual positive assembly features, but the legal side is the point. We are sure of our position on the legal line. There is evidence that she is Moses’ wife, because of the two boys, his own names written on them as it were. Those two names [p. 340] mean, I am not going to settle down in the establishments of this world. I am a stranger, and in this strangership I have God’s help. That is the line we are on.
CHH Is that why you speak of “her two sons”? The product proved that she was right.
JT It was some fruit there. They are the evidence of it. There is some fruit because these two sons were there. They have the names that Moses himself gave them, so that there is no question about it, the legal position is established, and a measure of fruitfulness, too.
WB-w Do you think there are those in the organised systems around us today that are bearing fruit in some ways, as believers?
JT What would christendom be if there were not? It would all be a mass of apostasy, but if we go back one hundred and twenty years, there were more in the profession outwardly than there are now.
Ques Would Eliezer be one who would repudiate trade unionism and benefit societies, and all that kind of thing?
JT That is a good remark, because if I am a sojourner here I do not want to belong to societies and do not wear a button in my coat. I am a heavenly man, a sojourner in a strange land. You will not get much help nor be much cared for, and the next thing is, God is my help. We are to rely on God.
Rem A brother was telling me since he came here in regard to trade unions that he did not join them, and God took him out of the sphere where he would be affected and changed his position in the same organisation. He is still working for the same people, but God has apparently answered his faith.
JT Well, that is the idea. One might say in one’s own experience there are countless witnesses to that very thing. You will say, Well, what can I do?
[p. 341] I have to be a trade unionist or I will not get a job, but that is shutting God out.
ANW Proving God is a process. Relying on a trade union I am not availing myself of the opportunity to prove what God can do and what God will be to me. The position of a stranger is one thing, but this seems to be a process of arriving at the knowledge of God in it.
JT He says, “The God of my father has been my help”. It is no mere theory. He has proved it.
Ques So you would put before a person who sought to break bread with us that an association of that kind is impossible in view of the service of God. Does not the position here and what is in view, show us the importance of these things?
JT There are certain outstanding difficulties at the present time with trade unions and mixed marriages and radios. The enemy is managing on those three points to defile the brethren, and it is for us to choose out men; that is to say, to have in the front, men on spiritual lines to attend to this matter. It is a real battle all the time.
JTJr The idea of union with Christ is opposed to a trade union, which is one of the enemy’s potent weapons, to work against union in a spiritual sense.
JT Just so.
C Another difficulty is that you are not a citizen.
JT There are a good many who are not citizens. Citizenship is quite all right. It is because of what you are required to swear to that the difficulty arises in claiming it. You cannot commit yourself to what is required.
Ques What is required compels you to deny your heavenly position.
JT That is what Moses means in regard to Gershom, ‘I have been a sojourner in a strange land’. The name of the other son, Eliezer, means, ‘the God of my father has been my help, and has [p. 342] delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh’. What comes out in Exodus is that Moses fled into the land of Midian. We are told in Hebrews, “he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king”. But secretly he really feared God. That is the idea and when the time comes for Moses to be used, God says, “All the men are dead who sought thy life”. God did not kill them right away, but they died; the difficulties were all removed. God did that.
LES What is needed is what Paul says to Timothy, “these entrust to faithful men, such as shall be competent to instruct others also”. We should be able to teach others also.
JT That is the idea. Choosing us out men. Moses made no mistake in the generals he selected for this matter.
Rem In Hebrews it says, “He ... choosing rather to suffer affliction”. I suppose he was qualified to choose out men because he had made a choice in regard to himself.
JT Yes, quite so. He made a good choice at the start, but now Joshua is to choose men. No one had ever heard of him before. Evidently a young man when he is called, but he is trustworthy. That is what is needed in those difficulties. The natural mind comes in. Well, this one has done it before; he would be better, but Joshua knew there must be no compromise at all. Can you see Satan in the thing, working through the flesh? That is the battle of Rephidim.
B How is the choosing done in the assembly today?
JT It is a question of letting the spiritual element be in the front instead of the natural element. It is very humbling to hear of things acting otherwise, but the men that are spiritual are needed. There must be spiritual unity in the things of [p. 343] God.
JH Would you say what is seen in Joshua is over against philosophy and vain deceit?
JT Yes, particularly at Corinth. The first thing the apostle objects to strongly is the partisan spirit. One saying, “I am of Paul, and another, I of Apollos”. Personal preferences, when these matters come up, are the first things to be dealt with.
JH It has been said that a brother who has a radio should not be asked to preach the gospel. Would this scripture be the basis for that? Choosing out men.
JT Quite so. That is good.
SMcC There are two or three cases before the brethren in different parts as to this matter of the radio. Perhaps the wife is not with us or the young people in the house, and the sin in having the radio is carried because of that. Do you think allowance should be made for that?
JT Well, the man is head of his house. The Lord holds him responsible for what is in his house clearly.
Rem You remarked that you would speak to a brother who had a radio and keep on speaking. I notice in Matthew 14: 4 John the baptist spoke to Herod. “John said to him”; and the footnote says it is the imperfect tense, so that literally, he kept on saying it.
JT Very good. He kept on condemning these things. Keep on at it and ultimately it gives way. Sometimes there is a long drawn out battle, but God comes in, and the evil gives way.
RRT Would coming out into the wilderness to Moses where he encamped at the mountain of God, involve leaving all these things — you are speaking about, trade unions and radios?
JT That is the point. We have come to the place where divine resources are. This mountain of God begins in Genesis 22. The mountain of Jehovah [p. 344] where everything will be provided. That enters into all this. You say, ‘Well, I must have this and that’; but the mountain of Jehovah means that everything would be provided. That is what Moses means in the name he gives his second son. The God of my father has been my help. God has been proved historically. There is plenty of evidence that God helps; the history of the saints abundantly testifies to it.
GD As to leaving things, was it there that the young man failed? The Lord says “Sell all that thou hast”. He had been right up to that time on the legal line. He said, “All these things have I kept from my youth”.
JT He was tested but it was really the tenth commandment. “But when the commandment came”, Paul says, “sin revived, and I died”, Romans 7: 9. That man was covetous really. It was selfishness. The commandment Paul refers to is “Thou shalt not covet”. So that to keep to our chapter, to keep to our type, the position is legal and we need not fear in it, and there is not much spirituality yet, but there is the means of it. Exodus 17 shows that the power of the Spirit is available. It has cost Christ infinitely that it should be there. It results from the death of the Lord Jesus; the Rock was smitten. It cost Jesus something and why should I not appropriate what cost Him so much? I am to be here in the power of the Spirit, answering to Him, to bring forth fruit unto God. I cannot be that if I am allied with ungodly men in their associations. Can I have the radio which is like a pipeline carrying all the filth of the world into my house? I am responsible to cut that off.
CHH Is there a limit to keeping on speaking? Eli says, “No, my sons”. He did not do anything more about it. Is there a limit to protesting against [p. 345] these things. Can we keep on speaking and do no more?
JT A man may say, I never use it myself. Well, it is there. Eli’s sons carried on, although he protested against it, but he did not go the whole length in dealing with it.
JN Do you get the right thought in Abraham, he commanded his sons?
JT There is very little of that. God says, speaking of Abraham, “I know him that be will command his children and his household after him”, Genesis 18: 19. In the choosing out of the men that is the idea, men who will command their houses.
LES Jethro says, “Now I know that Jehovah is greater than all gods; for in the thing in which they acted haughtily he was above them”.
JT It is an advantage to have the truth set out about these things. There is support from God as we act before Him. Support is here in the Spirit. Moses is on high. “And Joshua did as Moses had said to him, to fight with Amalek; and Moses, Aaron and Hur went up to the top of the hill. And it came to pass when Moses raised his hand, that Israel prevailed; and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed. And Moses’ hands were heavy; then they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat on it; and Aaron and Hur supported his hands, one on this side, and one on that side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun”, Exodus 17: 10 - 12. That is how the need is met as it arises. There was not a word about Aaron and Hur holding up the hands at the beginning of the battle, but as the exigency arose, the hands were held.
JHE Would you say that one who had these things was true to the fellowship?
JT He is not true to it; that is just the point. The battle is in order that all might be brought [p. 346] around to it, to see that it is not right to have it, so that I can be one who can be chosen too.
JH Is there such a thing as the legitimate use of the radio in the home of a christian?
JT The scripture says, “Lead us not into temptation, but save us from evil”. What about the ears of my children? You are not delivering them from evil by bringing it right to their ears. It is bringing the world into my house.
RWS What comes into the house comes into the assembly.
JT Exactly. It is an avenue for the world to come into a man’s house, whatever excuse you may make.
RC In regard again to labour organisations, do you regard an organisation within the company on the same plane as a trade union?
JT Well, there are grades, of course. It is a question of association; that enters into it, anyway. There is hardly time to go into the details of this matter, but the great question of trade unionism involves murder. Look at the book of Revelation, chapter 15, and see how much is made of those who are victorious over the beast and the mark of the beast.
CHH How long have we to walk with brethren who persist in these things?
JT We are certainly not obliged to go on in fellowship with them. The Lord would never put it upon us to do that, and yet we have to exercise great patience with them, if they are breaking bread. It is incompatible with christian service.
D Surely a union within a company is only a step toward the greater unions.
JT Quite so. We do not want to digress too much on these negative things. It is part of the battle of Rephidim. God will have war with Amalek from generation to [p. 347] generation.
LES The word of God which is living and operative and sharper than a two-edged sword would help us in this.
JT Quite so. Joshua broke the power of Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword. Let it have the sharp edge of the word of God in dealing with matters.
ANW “For the God of my father has been my help, and has delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh”. All that we have been saying shows how we would be delivered from the sword of Pharaoh, for that will mean death, and not life to us.
JT Just so. It really connects with Zipporah chosen as Moses’ wife legally, and not only that, but there are these two sons whom Moses himself names; so that it is a real family — an established family. Romans 7 lays the basis for this, “that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God”. The chapter brings out the person. “I myself”. He has totally clear deliverance. He says, “I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then I myself with the mind serve God’s law”. That settles all these things we have been speaking about. The word of God forbids these things. Romans 8 opens up as to the Spirit. “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus”. Following that there is a beautiful word telling us how much these things are to God. Paul says, “God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit”, Romans 8: 3, 4. So that the soul is now clear, and chapter 8 speaks of what the Spirit is to us in this position. It is the mountain of God in the wilderness, but nothing for the flesh at all. All resources are from [p. 348] God.
TS I was just wondering if verse 7 of our chapter should touch our hearts as to God’s system of help and all that we have been speaking of. In addition to the edge of the sword, it says that Moses went to meet Jethro “and kissed him; and they asked each other after their welfare”.
JT Love is active. That would further explain what we were saying about what happened one hundred and twenty years ago. This is how the matter went on, brethren loved each other and had confidence in each other, but there were many matters that came out that had to be settled, but still, men like Jethro were recognised. Their advice was taken.
AR Moses tells Jethro what God had done to Pharaoh and what He had done to the Egyptians for Israel’s sake.
JT The whole point is, what God is doing. Joseph mentioned it. Now it is in Moses’ history. “God is my help”. Jethro was occupied with what God is doing. Moses listens to him and he takes his advice, all of which enters into the position, and that is how the administration is to be carried on. We love one another and go on, with nothing against each other. We do not want to bring up things. God brings them up. We are in the hands of God. It is what He will do.
WT Jethro learned this matter from Moses in quite a different way from what he would have learned it back in the land of Midian. He learned his place in the testimony in the right way.
JT Yes, and look at the beautiful meeting they had here. “Now I know that Jehovah is greater than all gods; for in the thing in which they acted haughtily, he was above them ...”, Exodus 18: 11. He is an officiating priest and he has come in from Midian. That shows the power there was, the grace there was, to recognise what there was of God in a [p. 349] man like this. Aaron the priest of Jehovah is sitting down with him. That is how matters stood years ago. The legal position was there.
It is no longer now what is in the wilderness, but in Achsah we have a woman united to a man of great military ability, that is, Othniel, and it is a question of the inheritance of God. This can only be maintained and we maintained in it, by the springs — the Spirit of God operating among us. She asked for springs of water and Caleb gave her the upper and nether springs. We can only be in the inheritance of God through faith and by the power of the Spirit of God who is indeed the Earnest of the inheritance until the redemption of the acquired possession.
ABP Would the asking come with the desire for spiritual power?
JT I would think so. She sprang off the ass upon which she was riding. Caleb has a great place here. It is a remarkably rich setting. We see military power in relation to the inheritance.
WGT You spoke about the radio, in this case the attack is on the city of books — Kirjath-Sepher.
JT Just so. Othniel took that city. He is a military man. He stands related to the same family as his wife. She is in the land and has great desires in regard to springs. The good of the inheritance of God can only be known by the springs of water.